SoTL in the LIS Classroom: Helping Future Academic Librarians Become More Engaged Teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we share background and key considerations of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), and propose introducing library and information science (LIS) students to SoTL as a way to acquaint them with the higher education teaching profession. Throughout the article, we employ reflection as the primary consideration and support structure that frames the benefits of SoTL for instructional growth. Four critical stages of SoTL training, first suggested by Gale and Golde (2004), are recommended for LIS students: Exposure, Encounter, Engagement, and Extension. As instruction responsibilities and opportunities continue to expand in academic librarianship, teaching about SoTL using the four stages may prepare LIS students to quickly adjust to their new roles and engage with other teaching faculty. This article fills a gap in the literature on SoTL in LIS instruction curricula.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".